- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Researchers were so floored by the preliminary results -- respectively, the circumcized Ugandan and Kenyan men were 53 and 48 percent less likely to become infected -- that they felt a moral obligation to put a halt to the study.
Again I say, "WHAT?"
So if a research project on a deadly disease starts showing results, you cancel it? WTF kind of nonsense is that?
And oh Broadsheet, please. Are you seriously suggesting that any and every possibility of helping alleviate AIDS shouldn't be proposed? Just whose side are you on, anyway? EVERY possible avenue should be explored, whether the result is up to your oh-so-holy PC standards or not. So what if circumcision is not so popular these days? If it helps save people's lives, what argument could there possibly be against it? Last time I checked, most guys would probably prefer being alive without a foreskin to being dead with one.
I swear, you people are more ridiculous every day...
